[JENKINS-73487] Fix Stapler exception with multiple security warnings

[daniel-beck]

See JENKINS-73487. Amends #7046.

Testing done

I found this issue to be reproducible with Script Security 1.78 on 2.462.x (as well as latest master). My guess is it might happen once you collect multiple security warnings for an installed component, but looking at the code I'm unsure why that would be. Did not investigate further once I had the reproduction.

Adding this change / reverting it switches between the good and bad behaviors:

Proposed changelog entries

• Fix exception error message about hudson.model.UpdateSite$Warning on Manage Jenkins that may be shown when plugins with known security issues are installed.

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

Beta Give feedback

1. The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
2. The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
3. There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
4. New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
5. New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
6. New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
7. For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
8. For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@mention

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

Beta Give feedback

1. There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
2. Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
3. Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
4. Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
5. If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
6. If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).

[MarkEWaite]

Thanks!

[timja]

/label ready-for-merge

---

This PR is now ready for merge, after ~24 hours, we will merge it if there's no negative feedback.

Thanks!

[alexsch01]

Is this PR too late for 2.479.2?
EDIT: yes
sorry for the edits, I didn't want to sound rude

[daniel-beck]

Can this specific PR get backported to 2.479.2?

It's too late for that.

If you want to continue using plugins with known vulnerabilities, you can hide individual security warnings on /configureSecurity/, or all of them (including future ones, so not a great idea) by disabling the warnings admin monitor on /configure. Either approach should work around this problem.

[alexsch01]

Thanks, I never experienced this exception before. If this specific exception ever does happen, what can an admin do to fix it?